111–120 of 250 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Moores law lives on in Kurzweils law (in spirit)
No it doesn’t - take that singularity bullshit elsewhere. Gordon Moore never aligned himself with that pseudoscientific nonsense https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/2010-...
I once got the opportunity to ask Gordon Moore a question, “what is the equivalent of Moore’s Law for software?” His response, “number of bugs doubles every year”. Great man.
Wow, we have lost a true legend. As I get older, I marvel a bit at the giants I once shared time on the earth with. Sometimes it feels like we don't have giants in the 21st century in the same way.
Try to become a giant yourself - why not?
But my comment doesn't come out of a sense of desire to emulate. Just out of a sense that especially in the early-to-mid 20th century, we had these titanic characters: Einstein, Tesla, Von Neumann, The Beatles, and so forth.
In a lot of ways, I think it comes down to these folks existing in the beginnings of the information age, and how many advances were unlocked by the increase in communication speed.
That was probably a lot more groundbreaking than the digital revolution. For all the progress we've seen since I was born in the 80s, there's not a lot of things that have fundamentally changed in terms of human capability. Although, we may see in the next decade or two the same sort of paradigm shift.
For anyone who has interest / time and lives in the Bay Area, watch this PBS program for the history of the "Fairchildren" and the roots of Silicon Valley. (of which Gordon Moore was one of the "traitorous eight" who contributed to making SV what it is today) If you live, drive, work around the area, there are so many landmarks and legacies of this phase of history that you can still see today (but only if you keep an eye out and take a little effort to learn the past).
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/silicon/#f...
(links to Amazon Prime, Apple TV there, and you can also find this on your favorite BitTorrent source...)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it doesn’t - take that singularity bullshit elsewhere. Gordon Moore never aligned himself with that pseudoscientific nonsense https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/2010-...
I don't understand what you linked. Don't they believe in technological singularity? I would think a intelligence capable of self modification could use the scientific method to increase it's performance (even if it means scaling in size like a matrioshka brain).
“ In fact, in a 2005 interview, Moore personally stated that his prediction of exponential growth would not hold indefinitely, simply due to "the nature of exponentials."
No.
Thank you Gordon Moore. RIP.